Contract Query

David85

Anybody know anything about employment contracts?

Was just looking at my wifes contract for her part-time job. Few things from contract im not too sure about.

1. The company has no duty to provide you with work.

2. You have no normal hours of work. However, you will be required to work a minimum of 4 hours each week.

3. The company has the right to require you to work such further hours as it considers necessary.

At my wifes interview she was told she was on a 4hr/week contract. So am I wrong in assuming that they do have to provide those 4 hours at least? There has been a number of times they've only gave her 3 hrs work a week. And also if they have no duty to provide work how can they just demand extra hours?

I'm no expert on the matter but it just doesn't look right to me, her manager has even previously told her that she's actually contracted to 2 separate 4 hr shifts per week to make her work when she wasn't able to 🤔, then all of a sudden it goes back down to 3 hrs per week for a month or so.

I could also mention a few things about taking holidays but I'll just leave that for now.

Thanks in advance for any help

Les79

Weird terms like. The 3rd one bothers me a bit because how long does it mean?! Very vague and they could potentially ask her to do 40 hours one week.


With point 1 I feel it is just a zero hours contract whereby they may not offer her any hours on certain weeks.


I would potentially speak to ACAS about that one, but I'm thinking that it is just a zero hour contract but worded in a way which favours the employer; reserves them the right to effectively offer your wife anywhere between 0-40 hours a week but tries to COMPEL her to do as she's told.


That being said, with these types of contracts if you kick up a fuss they usually just stop offering work etc. Really crappy like.


I hope someone else can give a better answer or maybe ACAS. Otherwise, I'd just say maybe query it and, if the answer doesn't fill her with confidence, either soldier on/find a new job.

sangie595

No it's not a zero hours contract. Three contract says she must work for hours minimum per week. That's not zero. So yes, the Emory is obliged, for what it is worth, to provide for hours work, minimum, every week, or pay for it. Legally speaking.

Those minimum hours indicate the employer knows what they are doing. Because it pushes the contract into a grey area, because only zero hours workers have the right to refuse work offered. But those four hours make her an employee, and they don't legally have the right to refuse work. It would probably make interesting case law - if she had two years employment and a union or legal cover to back her.

So yes, she's entitled to four hours pay. There's a point to be argued about whether or not she can reasonably be expected to accept further work than that. And it's probably moot as she can be dismissed for just about any reason in the first two years of employment. I suppose she could "bank" records proving the underpayment of the odd hour as she could later claim it under a small claim for up to six years. I assume she wouldn't be working there if she could afford not to?